Single-Dose Rifapentine in Household Contacts of Patients with Leprosy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that a single dose of rifampin has protective effects against leprosy in close contacts of patients with the disease. Rifapentine was shown to have greater bactericidal activity against Mycobacterium leprae than rifampin in murine models of leprosy, but data regarding its effectiveness in preventing leprosy are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether single-dose rifapentine is effective in preventing leprosy in household contacts of patients with leprosy. The clusters (counties or districts in Southwest China) were assigned to one of three trial groups: single-dose rifapentine, single-dose rifampin, or control (no intervention). The primary outcome was the 4-year cumulative incidence of leprosy among household contacts. RESULTS: A total of 207 clusters comprising 7450 household contacts underwent randomization; 68 clusters (2331 household contacts) were assigned to the rifapentine group, 71 (2760) to the rifampin group, and 68 (2359) to the control group. A total of 24 new cases of leprosy occurred over the 4-year follow-up, for a cumulative incidence of 0.09% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.34) with rifapentine (2 cases), 0.33% (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.63) with rifampin (9 cases), and 0.55% (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.95) with no intervention (13 cases). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the cumulative incidence in the rifapentine group was 84% lower than that in the control group (cumulative incidence ratio, 0.16; multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.87; P = 0.02); the cumulative incidence did not differ significantly between the rifampin group and the control group (cumulative incidence ratio, 0.59; multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.57; P = 0.23). In a per-protocol analysis, the cumulative incidence was 0.05% with rifapentine, 0.19% with rifampin, and 0.63% with no intervention. No severe adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of leprosy among household contacts over 4 years was lower with single-dose rifapentine than with no intervention. (Funded by the Ministry of Health of China and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR-IPR-15007075.).

Experimental Solubility, Thermodynamic/Computational Validations, and GastroPlus-Based In Silico Prediction for Subcutaneous Delivery of Rifampicin.

We focused to explore a suitable solvent for rifampicin (RIF) recommended for subcutaneous (sub-Q) delivery [ethylene glycol (EG), propylene glycol (PG), tween 20, polyethylene glycol-400 (PEG400), oleic acid (OA), N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), cremophor-EL (CEL), ethyl oleate (EO), methanol, and glycerol] followed by computational validations and in-silico prediction using GastroPlus. The experimental solubility was conducted over temperature ranges T = 298.2-318.2 K) and fixed pressure (p = 0.1 MPa) followed by validation employing computational models (Apelblat, and van't Hoff). Moreover, the HSPiP solubility software provided the Hansen solubility parameters. At T = 318.2K, the estimated maximum solubility (in term of mole fraction) values of the drug were in order of NMP (11.9 × 10-2) ˃ methanol (6.8 × 10-2) ˃ PEG400 (4.8 × 10-2) ˃ tween 20 (3.4 × 10-2). The drug dissolution was endothermic process and entropy driven as evident from "apparent thermodynamic analysis". The activity coefficients confirmed facilitated RIF-NMP interactions for increased solubility among them. Eventually, GastroPlus predicted the impact of critical input parameters on major pharmacokinetics responses after sub-Q delivery as compared to oral delivery. Thus, NMP may be the best solvent for sub-Q delivery of RIF to treat skin tuberculosis (local and systemic) and cutaneous related disease at explored concentration.

Validation study of HLA-B*13:01 as a biomarker of dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome in leprosy patients in Indonesia.

Leprosy is a stigmatizing, chronic infection which degenerates the nervous system and often leads to incapacitation. Multi-drug therapy which consists of dapsone, rifampicin and clofazimine has been effective to combat this disease. In Indonesia, especially in Papua Island, leprosy is still a problem. Furthermore, there had been higher reports of Dapsone Hypersensitivity Syndrome (DHS) which also challenges leprosy elimination in certain aspects. Globally, DHS has a prevalence rate of 1.4% and a fatality rate up to 13%. The aim of this study is to validate HLA-B*13:01, a previously discovered biomarker for DHS in the Chinese population, as a biomarker for DHS in the Papua population.This is a case-control study of 34 leprosy patients who presented themselves with DHS (case subjects) and 52 leprosy patients without DHS (control subjects). Patients were recruited from 2 provinces: Papua and West Papua. DNA was extracted from 3 ml blood specimens. HLA-B alleles were typed using the gold-standard sequence based typing method. Results were then analysed using logistic regression and risk assessment was carried out. The results of HLA-typing showed that HLA-B*13:01 was the most significant allele associated with DHS, with odds ratio = 233.64 and P-value = 7.11×10-9, confirming the strong association of HLA-B*13:01 to DHS in the Papua population. The sensitivity of this biomarker is 91.2% and specificity is 96.2%, with an area under the curve of 0.95. HLA-B*13:01 is validated as a biomarker for DHS in leprosy patients in Papua, Indonesia, and can potentially be a good predictor of DHS to help prevent this condition in the future.

Rifampicin and clarithromycin (extended release) versus rifampicin and streptomycin for limited Buruli ulcer lesions: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Buruli ulcer is a neglected tropical disease caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans infection that damages the skin and subcutis. It is most prevalent in western and central Africa and Australia. Standard antimicrobial treatment with oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus intramuscular streptomycin 15 mg/kg once daily for 8 weeks (RS8) is highly effective, but streptomycin injections are painful and potentially harmful. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fully oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus clarithromycin 15 mg/kg extended release once daily for 8 weeks (RC8) with that of RS8 for treatment of early Buruli ulcer lesions. METHODS: We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1 with blocks of six), multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial comparing fully oral RC8 with RS8 in patients with early, limited Buruli ulcer lesions. There were four trial sites in hospitals in Ghana (Agogo, Tepa, Nkawie, Dunkwa) and one in Benin (Pobè). Participants were included if they were aged 5 years or older and had typical Buruli ulcer with no more than one lesion (caterories I and II) no larger than 10 cm in diameter. The trial was open label, and neither the investigators who took measurements of the lesions nor the attending doctors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary clinical endpoint was lesion healing (ie, full epithelialisation or stable scar) without recurrence at 52 weeks after start of antimicrobial therapy. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A sample size of 332 participants was calculated to detect inferiority of RC8 by a margin of 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01659437. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2017, participants were recruited to the trial. We stopped recruitment after 310 participants. Median age of participants was 14 years (IQR 10-29) and 153 (52%) were female. 297 patients had PCR-confirmed Buruli ulcer; 151 (51%) were assigned to RS8 treatment, and 146 (49%) received oral RC8 treatment. In the RS8 group, lesions healed in 144 (95%, 95% CI 91 to 98) of 151 patients, whereas lesions healed in 140 (96%, 91 to 99) of 146 patients in the RC8 group. The difference in proportion, -0·5% (-5·2 to 4·2), was not significantly greater than zero (p=0·59), showing that RC8 treatment is non-inferior to RS8 treatment for lesion healing at 52 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 20 (13%) patients receiving RS8 and in nine (7%) patients receiving RC8. Most adverse events were grade 1-2, but one (1%) patient receiving RS8 developed serious ototoxicity and ended treatment after 6 weeks. No patients needed surgical resection. Four patients (two in each study group) had skin grafts. INTERPRETATION: Fully oral RC8 regimen was non-inferior to RS8 for treatment of early, limited Buruli ulcer and was associated with fewer adverse events. Therefore, we propose that fully oral RC8 should be the preferred therapy for early, limited lesions of Buruli ulcer. FUNDING: WHO with additional support from MAP International, American Leprosy Missions, Fondation Raoul Follereau France, Buruli ulcer Groningen Foundation, Sanofi-Pasteur, and BuruliVac.

Prolaxis post-exposición para lepra con dosis única de rifampicina: manual para su implementación / Post-exposure prolaxis for leprosy with a single dose of rifampicin: a manual for its implementation

Objetivo: La profilaxis post-exposición de la lepra con dosis única de rifampicina (SDR-PEP) ha demostrado ser efectiva y aplicable y está recomendada por la OMS desde 2018. Esta caja de herramientas SDR-PEP se desarrolló a través de la experiencia de la profilaxis lepra post-eliminación (LPEP). Se ha diseñado para facilitar y estandarizar la implementación del seguimiento de contactos y la administración SDR-PEP en regiones y países que iniciaron la intervención. Resultados: Se desarrollaron cuatro instrumentos, incorporando la evidencia existente actual para SDR-PEP y los métodos y enseñanzas del proyecto LPEP en ocho países. (1) El conjunto de diapositivas Powerpoint política/apoyo que ayudarán a los programadores sobre la evidencia, practicabilidad y recursos necesarios para SDR-PEP, (2) La colección de diapositivas PowerPoint sobre formación e implementación en el campo para formar al personal implicado en el seguimiento de contactos y PEP con SDR, (3) manual genérico de campo SDR-PEP que puede ser usado para formar un protocolo específico de campo para el seguimiento de contactos y SDR-PEP como referencia para el personal directamente implicado. Finalmente, (4) el manual director SDR-PEP, que resume los distintos componentes de la caja de herramientas y contiene las instrucciones para su uso. Conclusión: En respuesta al interés manifestado por varios países de implementar el seguimiento de contactos de lepra con PEP con SDR, con las recomendaciones OMS sobre SDR-PEP, esta caja de herramientas basada en la evidencia concreta pero flexible, ha sido diseñada para servir a los directores de programas nacionales de lepra con un medio práctico para trasladar los planteamientos a la práctica. Está disponible gratuitamente en la página de Infolep y actualizada constantemente: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme(AU).

Objective: Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDRPEP) has proven effective and feasible, and is recommended by WHO since 2018. This SDR-PEP toolkit was developed through the experience of the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme. It has been designed to facilitate and standardise the implementation of contact tracing and SDR-PEP administration in regions and countries that start the intervention. Results: Four tools were developed, incorporating the current evidence for SDRPEP and the methods and learnings from the LPEP project in eight countries. (1) the SDR-PEP policy/advocacy PowerPoint slide deck which will help to inform policy makers about the evidence, practicalities and resources needed for SDR-PEP, (2) the SDR-PEP field implementation training PowerPoint slide deck to be used to train front line staff to implement contact tracing and PEP with SDR, (3) the SDR-PEP generic field guide which can be used as a basis to create a location specific field protocol for contact tracing and SDR-PEP serving as a reference for frontline field staff. Finally, (4) the SDR-PEP toolkit guide, summarising the different components of the toolkit and providing instructions on its optimal use. Conclusion: In response to interest expressed by countries to implement contact tracing and leprosy PEP with SDR in the light of the WHO recommendation of SDRPEP, this evidence-based, concrete yet flexible toolkit has been designed to serve national leprosy programme managers and support them with the practical means to translate policy into practice. The toolkit is freely accessible on the Infolep homepages and updated as required: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-postexposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme(AU).

Protocol, rationale and design of PEOPLE (Post ExpOsure Prophylaxis for LEprosy in the Comoros and Madagascar): a cluster randomized trial on effectiveness of different modalities of implementation of post-exposure prophylaxis of leprosy contacts.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is an ancient infectious disease with a global annual incidence that has plateaued above 200,000 new cases since over a decade. New strategies are required to overcome this stalemate. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with a single dose of Rifampicin (SDR) has conditionally been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), based on a randomized-controlled-trial in Bangladesh. More evidence is required. The Post ExpOsure Prophylaxis for Leprosy (PEOPLE) trial will assess effectiveness of different modalities of PEP on the Comoros and Madagascar. METHODS: PEOPLE is a cluster-randomized trial with villages selected on previous leprosy-incidence and randomly allocated to four arms. Four annual door-to-door surveys will be performed in all arms. All consenting permanent residents will be screened for leprosy. Leprosy patients will be treated according to international guidelines and eligible contacts will be provided with SDR-PEP. Arm-1 is the comparator in which no PEP will be provided. In arms 2, 3 and 4, SDR-PEP will be provided at double the regular dose (20 mg/kg) to eligible contacts aged two years and above. In arm 2 all household-members of incident leprosy patients are eligible. In arm 3 not only household-members but also neighbourhood contacts living within 100-m of an incident case are eligible. In arm 4 such neighbourhood contacts are only eligible if they test positive to anti-PGL-I, a serological marker. Incidence rate ratios calculated between the comparator arm 1 and each of the intervention arms will constitute the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: Different trials on PEP have yielded varying results. The pivotal COLEP trial in Bangladesh showed a 57% reduction in incidence over a two-year period post-intervention without any rebound in the following years. A study in a high-incidence setting in Indonesia showed no effect of PEP provided to close contacts but a major effect of PEP provided as a blanket measure to an entire island population. High background incidence could be the reason of the lack of effect of PEP provided to individual contacts. The PEOPLE trial will assess effectiveness of PEP in a high incidence setting and will compare three different approaches, to identify who benefits most from PEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.Gov. NCT03662022. Initial Protocol Version 1.2, 27-Aug-2018.

Predicting the impact of household contact and mass chemoprophylaxis on future new leprosy cases in South Tarawa, Kiribati: A modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The country of Kiribati is a small Pacific island nation which had a new case detection rate of 191 per 100,000 in 2016, and is one of the few countries yet to reach the WHO leprosy elimination goal. Chemoprophylaxis of household contacts of new cases, or to the whole population in a highly endemic areas have been found to be effective in reducing new case rates. This study investigated the potential impact of different chemoprophylaxis strategies on future cases in South Tarawa, the main population centre of Kiribati. METHODOLOGY: The microsimulation model SIMCOLEP was calibrated to simulate the South Tarawa population and past leprosy control activities, and replicate annual new cases from 1989 to 2016. The impact of six different strategies for delivering one round of single dose rifampicin (SDR) chemoprophylaxis to household contacts of new cases and/or one or three rounds of SDR to the whole population was modelled from 2017 to 2030. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our model predicted that continuing the existing control program of high levels of public awareness, passive case detection, and treatment with multidrug treatment would lead to a substantial reduction in cases but this was less effective than all modelled intervention scenarios. Mass chemoprophylaxis led to a faster initial decline in cases than household contact chemoprophylaxis alone, however the decline under the latter was sustained for longer. The greatest cumulative impact was for household contact chemoprophylaxis with three rounds of mass chemoprophylaxis at one-year intervals. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that control of leprosy would be achieved most rapidly with a combination of intensive population-based and household chemoprophylaxis. These findings may be generalisable to other countries where crowding places social contacts as well as household contacts of cases at risk of developing leprosy.

Effectiveness of single-dose rifampicin after BCG vaccination to prevent leprosy in close contacts of patients with newly diagnosed leprosy: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of single-dose rifampicin (SDR) after bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination in preventing leprosy in contacts. METHODS: This was a single-centre, cluster-randomized controlled trial at a leprosy control programme in northwest Bangladesh. Participants were the 14988 contacts of 1552 new leprosy patients who were randomized into the SDR-arm (n=7379) and the SDR+arm (n=7609). In the intervention group, BCG vaccination was followed by SDR 8-12 weeks later. In the control group, BCG vaccination only was given. Follow-up was performed at 1year and 2 years after intake. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of leprosy. RESULTS: The incidence rate per 10000 person-years at risk was 44 in the SDR-arm and 31 in the SDR+arm at 1year; the incidence rate was 34 in the SDR-arm and 41 in the SDR+arm at 2 years. There was a statistically non-significant (p=0.148; 42%) reduction for paucibacillary (PB) leprosy in the SDR+ arm at 1 year. Of all new cases, 33.6% appeared within 8-12 weeks after BCG vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year, SDR after BCG vaccination reduced the incidence of PB leprosy among contacts by 42%. This was a statistically non-significant reduction due to the limited number of cases after SDR was administered. To what extent SDR suppresses excess leprosy cases after BCG vaccination is difficult to establish because many cases appeared before the SDR intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3087.

Evaluation of Prospective HLA-B*13:01 Screening to Prevent Dapsone Hypersensitivity Syndrome in Patients With Leprosy.

Importance: Dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome (DHS) is the most serious adverse reaction associated with dapsone administration and one of the major causes of death in patients with leprosy, whose standard treatment includes multidrug therapy (MDT) with dapsone, rifampicin, and clofazimine. Although the HLA-B*13:01 polymorphism has been identified as the genetic determinant of DHS in the Chinese population, no studies to date have been done to evaluate whether prospective HLA-B*13:01 screening could prevent DHS by identifying patients who should not receive dapsone. Objective: To evaluate the clinical use of prospective HLA-B*13:01 screening for reduction of the incidence of DHS by excluding dapsone from the treatment for patients with HLA-B*13:01-positive leprosy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted from February 15, 2015, to April 30, 2018, in 21 provinces throughout China. A total of 1539 patients with newly diagnosed leprosy were enrolled who had not received dapsone previously. After excluding patients who had a history of allergy to sulfones or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, 1512 individuals underwent HLA-B*13:01 genotyping. All of the patients were followed up weekly for the first 8 weeks after treatment to monitor for adverse events. Exposures: Patients who were HLA-B*13:01 carriers were instructed to eliminate dapsone from their treatment regimens, and noncarrier patients received standard MDT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of DHS. The historical incidence rate of DHS (1.0%) was used as a control. Results: Among 1512 patients (1026 [67.9%] men, 486 [32.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 43.1 [16.2] years), 261 (17.3%) were identified as carriers of the HLA-B*13:01 allele. A total of 714 adverse events in 384 patients were observed during the follow-up period. Dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome did not develop in any of the 1251 patients who were HLA-B*13:01-negative who received dapsone, while approximately 13 patients would be expected to experience DHS, based on the historical incidence rate of 1.0% per year (P = 2.05 × 10-5). No significant correlation was found between other adverse events, including dermatologic or other events, and HLA-B*13:01 status. Conclusions and Relevance: Prospective HLA-B*13:01 screening and subsequent elimination of dapsone from MDT for patients with HLA-B*13:01-positive leprosy may significantly reduce the incidence of DHS in the Chinese population.

Trend analysis of leprosy in Morocco between 2000 and 2017: Evidence on the single dose rifampicin chemoprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Morocco has achieved the goal of leprosy elimination as a public health problem several years ago (less than 1 case/ 10 000 habitant). The aim of this study was to analyze trends of leprosy detection during the last 17 years taking into consideration the implementation of single dose rifampicin chemoprophylaxis (SDRC) started in 2012. METHODOLOGY: Time series of leprosy cases detected at national level between 2000 and 2017. Variable collected for each year were leprosy per 100000 H, age category, gender, origin, regions, grade of disabilities and clinical forms. The detection time series was assessed by Joinpoint Regression Analysis. Annual percentage changes (APCs) were estimated to identify the years (joinpoint) when significant changes occurred in the trend. We therefore examined trends in leprosy detection according to epidemiological variables. FINDINGS: Joinpoint regression showed a reduction in the detection rate between 2000 and 2017. The APC for the period 2012-2017 (-16.83, 95% CI: -29.2 to -2.3, p <0.05) was more pronounced than that of the previous period 2000-2012 (- 4.68, 95% CI: -7.3 to -2.0, p <0.05); with a significant break in the same joinpoint year SDRC implementation. In stratified analysis, case detection decreased, but not significantly, after the joinpoint years in men, children, multi-bacillary cases, grade 0-1 disabilities, rural and urban cases and in ten regions. CONCLUSIONS: Leprosy detection was declining over years with a significant reduction by 16% per year from 2012 to 2017. SDRC may reduce leprosy detection over the years following its administration.

Mínima Información esencial para documentar el seguimiento de contactos y dosis única de Rifampicina (SDR) para el control de la Lepra: Guía práctica / No disponible

Hay un renovado interés en el control de la lepra mediante la búsqueda activa de casos, que cada vez más se combina con intervenciones quimioprofilácticas para intentar reducir la transmisión del Mycobacterium leprae. El Programa Profilaxis Post-Exposición a la Lepra (LPEP, en inglés) está activo en ocho países endémicos e implementa la administración de dosis única de rifampicina (SDR, en inglés) a contactos seleccionados de pacientes de lepra. LPEP ha desarrollado un sistema de vigilancia, incluyendo la obtención de datos, reportes y controles rutinarios para cada país participante. Este sistema es todavía en gran parte específico para el programa LPEP. Para facilitar la continuidad después de completar la fase del proyecto y la puesta en marcha en otros países interesados, se intenta identificar la cantidad mínima de datos para documentar adecuadamente las actividades de la búsqueda de contactos y administración SDR para el control de la lepra de forma rutinaria. Se describen cuatro indicadores para el caso índice (además de cuatro ya obtenidos habitualmente) y siete indicadores para el cribaje de convivientes/contactos vecinos y encuestas comunitarias. Se proponen dos formas genéricas para obtener toda la información relevante a nivel de campo y distrito para el seguimiento de individuos o datos si resultara necesario, facilitar directrices para desarrollar las distintas tareas, proporcionar control de calidad al registrar las cuestiones clave para valorar la SDR y facilitar poder informar. Estos impresos genéricos tienen que adaptarse a requerimientos locales en cuanto a diseño, idioma e indicadores operacionales adicionales

In leprosy control there is a renewed interest in active case finding, which is increasingly being combined with chemoprophylactic interventions to try and reduce M. leprae transmission. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme, currently ongoing in eight endemic countries, pilots the provision of single-dose rifampicin (SDR) to eligible contacts of leprosy patients. LPEP has developed a surveillance system including data collection, reporting and regular monitoring for every participating country. This system is still largely programm-especific to LPEP. To facilitate continuity after completion of the project phase and start-up in other interested countries, we aim at identifying the minimal set of data required to appropriately document contact tracing activities and SDR administration for leprosy control in a routine setting. We describe four indicators for the index case (plus four already routinely collected) and seven indicators for household/neighbour screening, and community surveys. We propose two generic forms to capture all relevant information required at field and district level to follow-up on individuals or data if needed, provide guidance on the sequence of tasks, provide quality control by listing key questions to assess SDR eligibility, and facilitate reporting. These generic forms have to be adapted to local requirements in terms of layout, language, and additional operational indicators

Programa post-exposición a la profilaxis de la Lepra (LPEP): Actualización y análisis interno / No disponible

Se requieren nuevos planteamientos para incrementar el control de la lepra, disminuir el número de personas afectadas y cortar la transmisión. Para conseguir este objetivo las mejores soluciones son la detección precoz. El cribaje de contactos y la quimioprofilaxis. El Programa Profilaxis Post-exposición a la Lepra (LPEP) ayuda a demostrar la viabilidad de integrar el rastreo de contactos y dosis única de rifampicina (SDR) en las actividades rutinarias de control de la enfermedad. El programa LPEP está implementado entre los programas de control de la lepra de Brasil, Camboya, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka y Tanzania. Se centra en tres objetivos: rastro de contactos de nuevos pacientes diagnosticados de lepra, cribaje de contactos y administración de SDR a los contactos seleccionados. Las adaptaciones de protocolos países-específicos se refieren a la definición de contacto, edad mínima para SDR y personal implicado. La calidad de la evidencia se mantiene mediante coordinación central, documentación detallada y supervisión. Ya se han completado alrededor de 2 años de trabajo de campo en siete países en julio de 2017. Los 5,941 pacientes índice registrados (89·4% de los registrados) han identificado un total de 123,311 contactos, de los cuales el 99·1% ha sido rastreado y cribado. De entre ellos, se identificaron 406 nuevos pacientes de lepra (329/100,000) y a 10,883 (8·9%) no se les administró SDR por diversos motivos. También 785 contactos (6·7%) rehusó tomar la profilaxis con SDR. En total, se administró SDR al 89·0% de los contactos registrados. La profilaxis post-exposición con SDR es segura; se puede integrar en los programas rutinarios de control de la lepra y es generalmente bien aceptada por el paciente índice, sus contactos y el personal sanitario. El programa también consigue estimular los programas locales de control de la lepra

Innovative approaches are required to further enhance leprosy control, reduce the number of people developing leprosy, and curb transmission. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis currently is the most promising approach to achieve this goal. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme generates evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) administration into routine leprosy control activities in different settings. The LPEP programme is implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Focus is on three key interventions: tracing the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients; screening the contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Country-specific protocol adaptations refer to contact definition, minimal age for SDR, and staff involved. Central coordination, detailed documentation and rigorous supervision ensure quality evidence. Around 2 years of field work had been completed in seven countries by July 2017. The 5,941 enrolled index patients (89·4% of the registered) identified a total of 123,311 contacts, of which 99·1% were traced and screened. Among them, 406 new leprosy patients were identified (329/100,000), and 10,883 (8·9%) were excluded from SDR for various reasons. Also, 785 contacts (0·7%) refused the prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 89·0% of the listed contacts. Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into the routines of different leprosy control programmes; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts and the health workforce. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control

Mycobacterium leprae-Specific Antibodies in Multibacillary Leprosy Patients Decrease During and After Treatment With Either the Regular 12 Doses Multidrug Therapy (MDT) or the Uniform 6 Doses MDT.

Leprosy serology reflects the bacillary load of patients and multidrug therapy (MDT) reduces Mycobacterium leprae-specific antibody titers of multibacillary (MB) patients. The Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy Regimen for Leprosy Patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR) compared outcomes of regular 12 doses MDT/R-MDT and the uniform 6 doses MDT/U-MDT for MB leprosy, both of regimens including rifampicin, clofazimine, and dapsone. This study investigated the impact of R-MDT and U-MDT and the kinetic of antibody responses to M. leprae-specific antigens in MB patients from the U-MDT/CT-BR. We tested 3,400 serum samples from 263 MB patients (R-MDT:121; U-MDT:142) recruited at two Brazilian reference centers (Dona Libânia, Fortaleza, Ceará; Alfredo da Matta Foundation, Manaus, Amazonas). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with three M. leprae antigens [NT-P-BSA: trisaccharide-phenyl of phenollic glycolipid-I antigen (PGL-I); LID-1: Leprosy Infectious Disease Research Institute Diagnostic 1 di-fusion recombinant protein; and ND-O-LID: fusion complex of disaccharide-octyl of PGL-I and LID-1] were performed using around 13 samples per patient. Samples were collected at baseline/M0, during MDT (R-MDT:M1-M12 months, U-MDT:M1-M6 months) and after MDT discontinuation (first, second year). Statistical significance was assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison between groups (p values < 0.05). Mixed effect multilevel regression analyses were used to investigate intraindividual serological changes overtime. In R-MDT and U-MDT groups, males predominated, median age was 41 and 40.5 years, most patients were borderline lepromatous and lepromatous leprosy (R-MDT:88%, U-MDT: 90%). The bacilloscopic index at diagnosis was similar (medians: 3.6 in the R-MDT and 3.8 in the U-MDT group). In R-MDT and U-MDT groups, a significant decline in anti-PGL-I positivity was observed from M0 to M5 (p = 0.035, p = 0.04, respectively), from M6 to M12 and at the first and second year posttreatment (p < 0.05). Anti-LID-1 antibodies declined from M0 to M6 (p = 0.024), M7 to M12 in the R-MDT; from M0 to M4 (p = 0.003), M5 to M12 in the U-MDT and posttreatment in both groups (p > 0.0001). Anti-ND-O-LID antibodies decreased during and after treatment in both groups, similarly to anti-PGL-I antibodies. Intraindividual serology results in R-MDT and U-MDT patients showed that the difference in serology decay to all three antigens was dependent upon time only. Our serology findings in MB leprosy show that regardless of the duration of the U-MDT and R-MDT, both of them reduce M. leprae-specific antibodies during and after treatment. In leprosy, antibody levels are considered a surrogate marker of the bacillary load; therefore, our serological results suggest that shorter U-MDT is also effective in reducing the patients' bacillary burden similarly to R-MDT. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00669643.

Clinical trial for uniform multidrug therapy for leprosy patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR): adverse effects approach.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy for Leprosy Patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR), designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a six-months regimen, assessed the adverse effects caused by the drugs. OBJECTIVE: Describe adverse effects due to MDT in U-MDT/CT-BR, comparing the uniform regimen (U-MDT) to the current WHO regimen (R-MDT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After operational classification, patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. U-MDT PB and U-MDT MB groups, received the U-MDT regimen, six doses of MB-MDT (rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine). R-MDT PB and R-MDT MB groups, received the WHO regimens: six doses (rifampicin and dapsone) for PB and 12 doses (rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine) for MB. During treatment, patients returned monthly for clinical and laboratorial evaluation. Patients with single lesion were not included in this trial. RESULTS: Skin pigmentation (21.7%) and xerosis (16.9%) were the most frequent complaints among 753 patients. Laboratory exams showed hemoglobin concentration lower than 10g/dL in 23.3% of the patients, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT) above 40U/L in 29.5% and glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT) above 40U/L in 28.5%. Twenty-four patients (3.2%) stopped dapsone intake due to adverse effects, of whom 16.6% due to severe anemia. One case of sulfone syndrome was reported. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Loss of some monthly laboratory sample collection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference regarding adverse effects in the R-MDT and U-MDT groups but anemia was greater in patients from R-MDT/MB group, therefore adverse effects do not represent a constraint to recommend the six-month uniform regimen of treatment for all leprosy patients.

Clinical trial for uniform multidrug therapy for leprosy patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR): adverse effects approach

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy for Leprosy Patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR), designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a six-months regimen, assessed the adverse effects caused by the drugs. OBJECTIVE: Describe adverse effects due to MDT in U-MDT/CT-BR, comparing the uniform regimen (U-MDT) to the current WHO regimen (R-MDT). Patients and methods: After operational classification, patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. U-MDT PB and U-MDT MB groups, received the U-MDT regimen, six doses of MB-MDT (rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine). R-MDT PB and R-MDT MB groups, received the WHO regimens: six doses (rifampicin and dapsone) for PB and 12 doses (rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine) for MB. During treatment, patients returned monthly for clinical and laboratorial evaluation. Patients with single lesion were not included in this trial. RESULTS: Skin pigmentation (21.7%) and xerosis (16.9%) were the most frequent complaints among 753 patients. Laboratory exams showed hemoglobin concentration lower than 10g/dL in 23.3% of the patients, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT) above 40U/L in 29.5% and glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT) above 40U/L in 28.5%. Twenty-four patients (3.2%) stopped dapsone intake due to adverse effects, of whom 16.6% due to severe anemia. One case of sulfone syndrome was reported. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Loss of some monthly laboratory sample collection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference regarding adverse effects in the R-MDT and U-MDT groups but anemia was greater in patients from R-MDT/MB group, therefore adverse effects do not represent a constraint to recommend the six-month uniform regimen of treatment for all leprosy patients.

Chemoprophylaxis of leprosy with rifampicin in contacts of multibacillary patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The annual new-case detection rate for leprosy, while generally stable over the last decade, shows that transmission rates have remained stagnant despite the successful worldwide administration of multidrug therapy since the 1980s. As such, novel control strategies are urgently needed. Focusing on managing leprosy patient contacts, the most susceptible to contracting the disease, has been seen as a potential strategy in limiting the spread of leprosy as shown by a number of recent epidemiological studies. Immunoprophylaxis with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) has been seen as an effective preventive measure due to its ability to stimulate the development of cellular immunity which is essential in controlling the disease, especially in its multibacillary (MB) forms. The association of immunoprophylaxis with chemoprophylaxis in a single dose of rifampicin has been shown to be a promising preventive strategy, although a variety of studies have found instances of early case detection just a few months after BCG vaccination. METHODS/DESIGN: The present study is a phase IV chemoprophylactic clinical trial consisting of administration of a single dose of rifampicin in MB leprosy patient contacts under care at the Souza Araújo Outpatient Clinic/FIOCRUZ as part of a randomized (2:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study. It is comprised of two groups: 1) rifampicin + BCG; and 2) placebo + BCG. DISCUSSION: The aim is to evaluate whether the use of chemoprophylaxis with a single dose of rifampicin in MB leprosy patient contacts prior to the BCG vaccine would be able to prevent the onset of leprosy in those cases that may occur just a few months after vaccination. Contact subclinical infections (polymerase chain reaction) and the immunological parameters (anti-PGL-1, anti-LID-1, and IFN-γ) will be evaluated and the results will be compared after 12 months of follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC), RBR-69QK5P . Retrospectively registered on 1 June 2017.